Was Mary Sinless?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]

However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).

When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,

Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]

Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,

For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]

Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,

If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]

However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:

His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]

This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:

His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]

As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.

As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.

Ah, a former Catholic. How well did you know what the Church teaches?

I don't want to speculate about anyone’s particular circumstances or reasons, and I don't direct this to you or any other former Catholic on this thread, but I have noticed that the most virulent anti-Catholics are former Catholics.

I remember a radio talk show host in the early 80’s who was always disparaging the Catholic Church- as a former Catholic. It always struck me as strange; if you don't believe something, you pretty much ignore it; you don't hate it, unless there is another reason.

In the talk show host's case, he “came out of the closet” a couple of years after that, and it all made sense to me; he hated the Church because of what it teaches about his lifestyle.

I've known others who left the Church, usually for some particular pet sin, usually sexual.

Again, not directing this at anybody in particular (judge not and all that), but just making an observation in general.

Oh, and that beam- yes, it's easy to find; removing it is the hard part!

Jesus doesn’t need to be continually sacrificed or resacrificed. He died once for all and said *It is finished*.

Jesus said it was a done deal. How can the Catholic church say that it’s continuing?

Hebrews 10

1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

8When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

17then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Time spend praying to Mary is time spent not praying to God as Jesus commanded us to do.

Adoration given to her is adoration not given to God, in defiance to the clear command of God here...

Exodus 20 2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

****************************************************************************************

Putting anything before God or going to God through anybody else is putting another god before the Almighty God, Creator of the universe.

Catholics say they don’t worship Mary but they attribute to her characteristics of God and relate to her as they relate to God. The prayer, or whatever it is that caww posted above, is an excellent example of the kind of nonsense Catholics have built up around Mary.

In light of that, it cuts into their credibility when they deny they worship her.

I think a major problem (some) Protestants have in understanding Catholic doctrine is that they think eternity is no more than time -- only longer. In effect, this means they picture God as being within time (not able to act within time, which of course He can do and does). This means that time is pictured as greater than God, and not a creature of God, which -- in Catholic thought -- it is.

Even some of the Protestants who give lip service to eternity as outside of time don't seem to grasp the implications -- they know the words, but not the tune, so to speak. This limited understanding makes it impossible for them to grasp what we believe about the Mass.

Is there no end to your calumny!!. You are repeating a scandal which fails to reveal very important facts. But you know this and persist in it. Why? Because of hatred and bigotry and evil intent. This in a Christian??? Here are the facts that you forget. I take that back you have not forgotten but the full truth does not serve your agenda so you leave it out.

Benedict was 14 years of age when he was conscripted into the Hitler Youth. You probably don’t know what conscripted means so I’ll help you out. IT means he was drafted and had no choice. Here is the Wikepedia entry on the subject.

“Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth — as membership was required by law for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[9] — but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings.[10] His father was an enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger’s cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Aktion T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[11] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer.[10] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty[citation needed]. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family’s home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household”

Since you will claim this was all made up in some vast conspiracy of Catholics I include the source material

^ The Third Reich in Power, Richard J Evans, 2005, pg 272
^ a b “New Pope Defied Nazis As Teen During WWII”. Associated Press. USA Today. 23 April 2005. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-23-new-pope-defied-Nazis_x.htm. Retrieved 10 July 2009.
^ Allen, John (14 October 2005). “Anti-Nazi Prelate Beatified”. The Word from Rome (National Catholic Reporter). http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word101405.htm#five. Retrieved 15 April 2008.

No. We understand that eternity is outside time.

Jesus wasn’t sacrificed there. He was sacrificed on this planet on our three dimensional time restricted planet.

You keep being told that many of us were raised Catholic. W E do know what Catholicism teaches and what we believed as Catholics and what our family and friends believed as Catholics.

This business of *You don’t believe are we do because you don’t understand* is without merit. We don’t believe as you do because we DO understand. We understand what is written in the Bible.

It does not support most of Catholic doctrine.

Yet you continually get it wrong when trying to argue against Catholic beliefs. Were you so poorly catechized? That is my more generous explanation. I think rather you choose to belief what your Anti Catholic sect has told you about your former beliefs. Their explanations suit you better so you go with that.

If you had such a poor understanding of Church teaching while you were Catholic I can see why you left. Why I too would have left if there was any truth to what you write about what the Church teaches. But there is not and evidence to that fact abounds. Why do you ignore it?

I think the Orthodox faithful deserve a mention and credit here. Though they disagree with Catholics on several matters they have pronounced Anathema on those who believe sacred images are idols.

“The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols.”

That is my more generous explanation. I think rather you choose to belief what your Anti Catholic sect has told you about your former beliefs.

None of the churches I've attended in the last 30 years bothered with telling me about Catholicism, because they are not anti-Catholic, they are pro-Jesus. They have better things to do with their time. They don't gain adherents by tearing down Catholicism, they gain them by preaching the gospel.

Protestants are not sheeple who believe what their leadership decides for them to believe and dictates it to them. I realize that Catholics can't wrap their minds around thinking for themselves, having been so preconditioned to believe what is spoon fed to them. They tend to assume that everyone is like them. That's called projecting.

But if it makes you feel better to think that they do, by all means, go ahead, I can't stop you.

But I can tell you that you're misinformed about what Protestants really believe and practice.

The last resort argument of every Catholic on this board. I'll throw this one out to you.

If I was so poorly catechized, just whose fault is it? The priest who is supposed to be responsible for the flock he's entrusted with? Or the nuns who taught my catechism classes?

And why on earth would I want to stay in a church that can't even teach correctly to its members what it considers the truths it holds?

When I first accepted Christ as an adult and my eyes were finally opened to spiritual truths, one of the first things I did was go out and buy a Bible. Nobody told me I had to. I just knew that I needed to do that.

I read if voraciously. In the meantime, I knew I needed to start going back to church, so I did and I actually started by attending the parish I had been raised in. I didn't go to any Protestant churches for months. But the more I went and the more I read, the more and more discrepancies I saw between what was written in the Bible and what the Catholic church taught and practiced.

I finally went to a Evangelical/Protestant church and could not believe the difference. Not only did they teach and preach right out of the Bible, the sermons were interesting, and the people actually loved each other and cared about each other. Something that I never saw in the RCC I grew up in.

I figured I'd go to a church where the people LIVED what they believed instead of paying lip service.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.